In practice that's a horrible idea. You get MUCH better interaction by having an in-person conversation. Also, having to get out of bed, go to the lecture or office hours and actually talk to a person filters out a lot of the stupid questions.
Actually, many undergrads act like they're in kindergarten, and mommy and daddy and/or the taxpayers who are paying appreciate a little bit of nannying. Most professors hate it.
If you actually don't need to go to class, then don't. I didn't, for certain classes. But don't expect the professor to go out of his way to help you. You've got the textbook, Google and the whole Internet. If you're so good why do you need the professor's notes and lectures online and packed up nicely for you?
Yes, better teachers find ways to engage students... in class.
Interesting. We had a similar class, but it came after the digital design course. In DD you build the components of a computer, then a working computer, including specifying a machine language for it. Then in the assembly course you wrote an assembler for that machine. For efficiency you also wrote a software simulator for the hardware.
But the weed-out course was formal logic. And if that didn't do it, algorithms did.
The name is fine. It's computer science. There would be less confusion if US universities got their acts together and offered proper software engineering programs like universities in the rest of the world.
Raytheon can track people who publish their GPS coordinates publicly on the Internet? OMG scary!
They're mining Foursquare. The POINT of Foursquare is to let people know where you are. By the way, how do I get fat defence contracts for writing trivial programs?
I know exactly what I need, better than my teachers do. They're all old fuddy duddies stuck in the past. I'd drop out and teach myself, but I want someone to rubber stamp my degree. Can you help?
Have you considered DeVry or the University of Phoenix?
No, I'm not. If I write a paper and put your name on it, THAT is another kind of law. If I modify your paper, with your permission (because you picked a license that explicitly gives me permission to do that), and leave your name on it (because I'm required to by the license YOU chose), THAT is most definitely is a situation that is mediated by copyright law.
Well, the one I use most is hosted on the machine sitting next to my desk. I'm pretty sure our sysadmin isn't selling our information to anybody. I suppose I could get him drunk and find out. And if he is beat him until he stops.
Sure, obviously the solution is less regulation. Because the big banks don't collude at all!
The free market is a theoretical construct that can be approached in certain circumstances, generally only when there's a big powerful entity like a government to make sure it stays free.
My email providers don't. They don't because I pay them a small fee for the service.
"Read" doesn't imply a person. It's quite clear in the summary what is meant. MS is certainly being hypocritical, but that doesn't mean Google is a good guy.
The Huffington Post chose to sensationalize a story by focusing on life, but it isn't actually untrue: red dwarfs commonly hosting planets in their habitable zones greatly decreases the likely distance between life-bearing planets. It also has no political significance.
Saying Germany gets more sunshine than the US is a false statement, one that is easily checked with ten seconds of Googling, and does have political significance.
It's not necessary. The "can't build upon" for a scientific paper can really only be interpreted as you can't keep my paper as is, but add bits of your own to it.
Building upon published work in the usual scientific way is not governed by copyright at all, so it cannot be restricted by a copyright license.
I take your carefully written paper that you've published under a completely permissive licence, rewrite any bits I want (changing the meaning entirely), put a little small print under the authors banner saying "edited by the coalition for scientific accuracy" and put your paper up on my web site pushing homeopathy cures on unsuspecting suckers. All completely legal and there's nothing you can do about it.
Worse than that, somebody might remix your paper, use it for some purpose, and then attribute it to you!
Many scientific papers contain important statements that are backed by the reputations of the people and institutions whose names are on them. There isn't any reason to let anybody modify them, attribution or not. If you'd like to use one of my figures you can do use the time-tested solution - send me an e-mail and ask. If you want to remix my text and use it on your web site to sell your snake oil... no.
I'm not in the US, but if what you say is true you guys are truly screwed up.
In Canada every university has direct access to the vast majority of journals anyone cares about. Joe Random in his parents' basement just has to leave said basement and go to a university library and he can surf papers to his heart's content. Colleges might have a slightly more limited selection, but if there's anything you want that they don't have, they'll get it (for students and faculty) by interlibrary loan. If Joe Random doesn't live near a university or college, the smallest public library (like the one in my home town of 800 people) can get an article from anywhere in the country (and some places in the US I believe) by interlibrary loan.
Medical research as well, and the issue of open access has come up. It's down the list, but it is starting to come up.
At the same time, I'm about to submit to a journal (JCI) that's essentially always been open access. It's not a new idea. And if being open access is more than a philosophical advantage then it will show in your (1) and probably (2).
But this article isn't about open access. It's about letting people "remix" your paper and use it for whatever they want. Which I think is a horrible idea.
Could be. However, the GPs assertion that "this time the physicists are really sure that this one is unbreakable" referring to the speed of light is entirely false.
Slashdot Mirror
In practice that's a horrible idea. You get MUCH better interaction by having an in-person conversation. Also, having to get out of bed, go to the lecture or office hours and actually talk to a person filters out a lot of the stupid questions.
So what are you suggesting? Motorola assembly? Or writing Windows programs in 8086 assembler?
Actually, many undergrads act like they're in kindergarten, and mommy and daddy and/or the taxpayers who are paying appreciate a little bit of nannying. Most professors hate it.
If you actually don't need to go to class, then don't. I didn't, for certain classes. But don't expect the professor to go out of his way to help you. You've got the textbook, Google and the whole Internet. If you're so good why do you need the professor's notes and lectures online and packed up nicely for you?
Yes, better teachers find ways to engage students... in class.
Interesting. We had a similar class, but it came after the digital design course. In DD you build the components of a computer, then a working computer, including specifying a machine language for it. Then in the assembly course you wrote an assembler for that machine. For efficiency you also wrote a software simulator for the hardware.
But the weed-out course was formal logic. And if that didn't do it, algorithms did.
The name is fine. It's computer science. There would be less confusion if US universities got their acts together and offered proper software engineering programs like universities in the rest of the world.
Raytheon can track people who publish their GPS coordinates publicly on the Internet? OMG scary!
They're mining Foursquare. The POINT of Foursquare is to let people know where you are. By the way, how do I get fat defence contracts for writing trivial programs?
Dear Slashdot,
I know exactly what I need, better than my teachers do. They're all old fuddy duddies stuck in the past. I'd drop out and teach myself, but I want someone to rubber stamp my degree. Can you help?
Have you considered DeVry or the University of Phoenix?
That's a pretty theory, but it makes the bit where god declares that men won't live so long a little hard to explain.
They're not squatters. They run an active web site which is about a public, political figure.
No, I'm not. If I write a paper and put your name on it, THAT is another kind of law. If I modify your paper, with your permission (because you picked a license that explicitly gives me permission to do that), and leave your name on it (because I'm required to by the license YOU chose), THAT is most definitely is a situation that is mediated by copyright law.
Well, the one I use most is hosted on the machine sitting next to my desk. I'm pretty sure our sysadmin isn't selling our information to anybody. I suppose I could get him drunk and find out. And if he is beat him until he stops.
http://www.google.ca/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp%20of%20the%20united%20states#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gnp_mktp_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
The US economy had a little downturn in 2008 that it's largely recovered from. That's it. The rest has been almost all pure, unsustainable, growth.
What you mean is that the economy failed to grow the way it was expected to in 2000.
Sure, obviously the solution is less regulation. Because the big banks don't collude at all!
The free market is a theoretical construct that can be approached in certain circumstances, generally only when there's a big powerful entity like a government to make sure it stays free.
And if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Both companies are privacy invading for profit entities whose products are you. MS also has some other products.
My email providers don't. They don't because I pay them a small fee for the service.
"Read" doesn't imply a person. It's quite clear in the summary what is meant. MS is certainly being hypocritical, but that doesn't mean Google is a good guy.
You're conflating "bad at science" with "lying."
The Huffington Post chose to sensationalize a story by focusing on life, but it isn't actually untrue: red dwarfs commonly hosting planets in their habitable zones greatly decreases the likely distance between life-bearing planets. It also has no political significance.
Saying Germany gets more sunshine than the US is a false statement, one that is easily checked with ten seconds of Googling, and does have political significance.
It's not reactionless. You're shooting photons out one side.
I didn't believe it the first time, but now that this revolutionary new space drive has been published in Vogue, it's obviously worth a second look.
It's not necessary. The "can't build upon" for a scientific paper can really only be interpreted as you can't keep my paper as is, but add bits of your own to it.
Building upon published work in the usual scientific way is not governed by copyright at all, so it cannot be restricted by a copyright license.
So what you're saying is that the journal offered scientists an array of truly crappy options and they preferred the least crappy?
I take your carefully written paper that you've published under a completely permissive licence, rewrite any bits I want (changing the meaning entirely), put a little small print under the authors banner saying "edited by the coalition for scientific accuracy" and put your paper up on my web site pushing homeopathy cures on unsuspecting suckers. All completely legal and there's nothing you can do about it.
Worse than that, somebody might remix your paper, use it for some purpose, and then attribute it to you!
Many scientific papers contain important statements that are backed by the reputations of the people and institutions whose names are on them. There isn't any reason to let anybody modify them, attribution or not. If you'd like to use one of my figures you can do use the time-tested solution - send me an e-mail and ask. If you want to remix my text and use it on your web site to sell your snake oil... no.
I'm not in the US, but if what you say is true you guys are truly screwed up.
In Canada every university has direct access to the vast majority of journals anyone cares about. Joe Random in his parents' basement just has to leave said basement and go to a university library and he can surf papers to his heart's content. Colleges might have a slightly more limited selection, but if there's anything you want that they don't have, they'll get it (for students and faculty) by interlibrary loan. If Joe Random doesn't live near a university or college, the smallest public library (like the one in my home town of 800 people) can get an article from anywhere in the country (and some places in the US I believe) by interlibrary loan.
Medical research as well, and the issue of open access has come up. It's down the list, but it is starting to come up.
At the same time, I'm about to submit to a journal (JCI) that's essentially always been open access. It's not a new idea. And if being open access is more than a philosophical advantage then it will show in your (1) and probably (2).
But this article isn't about open access. It's about letting people "remix" your paper and use it for whatever they want. Which I think is a horrible idea.
Could be. However, the GPs assertion that "this time the physicists are really sure that this one is unbreakable" referring to the speed of light is entirely false.